« AN ECHO FROM THE PAST... | Main | POWER TO THE PEOPLE... »

July 31, 2006

Comments

aileen

Colm


I know what you mean, but it is still more than a bit sick.

daytripper

aileen, your bordering on being communist by introducing context into the argument. i do appreciate the company tho. :)

if you hang about ill introduce you to my freinds, fidel and kim. ;)

daytripper

allan, i agree its inappropriate, exploitive and extremely tasteless. but i fail to see the point in acting shocked.

how many blogs showed the beheaded soldiers bodies to hammer home a point or three?

aileen

Sorry Daytripper context wouldn't excuse him if he had sex with a 9 yr old girl. If he did, then no matter what age he lived in he's a poor manifestation of the divine,m to say the least . I'm just allowing for the possibility that marrying a nine yr old did not necessarily mean having sex with her.

daytripper

your right, but if under the current argument that mohammed is a paedophile then in context so are alot of kings of europe, including english kings.

im only pointing out the error of the argument, not excusing any behaviour.

aileen

Not necessarily daytripper. My point is that although the marriages with children were common, having sex with them wasn't. The convention was to wait. As I said from what I have read Margaret Beaufort's hubby was considered to have jumped the gun.

apart from anything else it was counter productive in terms of securing heirs and spares.

Mike's America

Dateraper: Seems someone dost protest too much....

Getting too close to the truth here are we??

aileen

Mike

Come off it if someone mad that sort of alegation against me I'd protest as well. I can't imaging you would take it as a compliment.

Mike's America

"someone mad" might take it as a compliment aileen.

Someone sane with a grasp of reality learned from history might not.

That Damnable O'Dwyer!

"Mike's America" goes for the dumb typo flame against Aileen, and in the process shoots himself in the foot.

Who's going to tell the poor clown that he just labelled himself as "someone mad", and daytripper as "someone sane with a grasp of reality learned from history"?

Mike's America

If you're looking for "poor clowns" Frank... you might find one in the nearest mirror.

Hugh Green

Technical Glitch is right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_re_us/mideast_photos

The AP said information from its photo editors showed the events were not staged, and that the time stamps could be misleading for several reasons, including that web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken. An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion.

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.

Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."

Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said.

"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."

The AP had three different photographers there who weren't always aware of what the others were doing, and filed their images to editors separately, said Santiago Lyon, director of photography.

There are also several reasons not to draw conclusions from time stamps, Lyon said. Following a news event like this, the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit.

The AP indicates to its members when they are sent on the wire, and member Web sites sometimes use a different time stamp to show when they are posted.

No doubt we'll have Mike's America coming on now to explain to us how AP and Reuters are in cahoots with Hezbollah, and how anyone who believes otherwise is a rapist.

Mike's America

And yet none of those "news" people or reporters ever stopped to get the name of this ubiquitous guy in the green helmet who just happens to be on the scene of every tragic bombing.

And these "news" folks only arrived at the scene after being "invited" by their Hezboo handlers many hours after the attack took place. Big surprise when no dead fighters or rocket launchers were found.

And did any of these "news" gatherers question their Hezboo handlers about this clear violation of Geneva Conventions and the war crime of placing weapons in civilian neighborhoods?

From the report Hugh cites we see nothing but a bunch of back slapping and self congratulation on getting the pictures, but not the story.

Again, raising more questions than answers.

Hugh Green

Cite a reliable source, Mike, instead of the half-cocked, cack-handed attempt at conspiracy theorising that prompted this thread, or even more people will put you down as a fully paid-up member of the tinfoil-hat brigade.

Hugh Green

In fact, to hell with the sources. Read back over the EU Referendum piece, in light of what you know now about the way the Associated Press and Reuters publish photos, and tell me if you think it's still as compelling and as cogent as before.

alison

"At the very least, the Israeli air force committed a serious blunder in Qana. Do none of you have the common humanity to acknowledge that much? It doesn't require you to oppose the military campaign. Just to admit that a disastrous mistake was made that cost the lives of uninvolved civilians"

But Hizballah didnt. They dont fight modern wars using civilians do they. Oh no. Acknowledging stashing and firing rockets from within civilian populations was also a 'disastrous mistake that cost the lives of civilians' would have made your statement in some way 'noble'. 'I have no doubt that Hezbollah gratefully seized upon the slaughter as a propaganda coup' but no moral outrage for this or the methods of conducting their warfare? As its stands this hate-filled, spittle-flecked antisemite shows his true colours. The eviiil Jooz eh.

Peter

The old, old smear. Anyone who crtitcises Israel MUST be an anti-semite, yeah?

Colm

alison

You are engaging here in the same tactics used by some on the left who shout 'racist' at anyone who dares criticise however mildly their policies on multiculturalism or immigration. I have often thought that when someone shouts racist it is often an indicator that they are losing an argument and just throwing the term around lazily to try ans silence their critics. Perhaps the same can now be said for inappropriate uses of anti-semitism which yours was.

alison

Yes i am Colm. Purposefully. Id question someones principles who sees no wrong at all in some tactics used by Hizbollah and accuses those who question this of being 'hate-filled'. Nothing strikes you as 'wrong' in this tactic? Only mine? Hmmm. I think its utterly deceitful to push a noble moral agenda whilst dismissing the tactics used by Hizbollah. And rather reveals their own standing.

Colm

alison

I wasn't aware that anyone here was defending Hezbollah's tactics of using civilians unless I have missed reading some comments , the only point I was trying to make is that it is perfectly valid to question Israel's tactics without having to be labelled an 'anti-semite'. I think it is a lazy argument to say that for example what happened at Qana was Hezbollah's responsibilty. No it wasn't. Responsililty is ALWAYS with those who carried out an action. It is possible and acceptable to justify Israel's military tactics and the overall strategy they are pursuing, but they are still responsible for the consequences of their chosen actions. Just as Hezbollah are responsible for their actions.

Justifying an action is one thing, deflecting responsibilty is another.

Allan@Aberdeen

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.

Does that statement apply to Kathleen Carroll? And who exactly are the photographers with the Reuters and AP badges?

alison

Colm - just as you find it a lazy argument to label people - so do I. That is precisely what i was challenging - the hate label applied so pathetically by the left. Ill let you off as i think youve missed the point and the comment to which it relates.

However i disagree with the line of your argument - yes it was Hitzballahs responsibility - they are responsible for their tactics and the actions THEY pursue. The action they carried out here was to fire rockets from a civilian location. Israels actions included warnings a week prior for civilians to leave. The burden of moral responsibility therefore lies with Hitzbollah. Whitewashing this to uniquely condemn Israel is playing into the hands of extremist propaganda and as you would say - lazy thinking.

Colm

alison

I do admit reading back over the thread I missed 'technical glitches' comment about "hate filled spittle specked sociopaths" which I now understand you were parodying and I apologise for misreading your comment that he was an anti-semite as I now understand you were using the term to correct his sweeping generalisation.

Hhowever on the point about responsibility I still maintain that each side must bear responsibilty for the actions they choose to undertake. If Israel fires a missile at a building , however unintentional the civilian casualties , they are still responsible for that. They still CHOSE to fire that missile at that building . This is not to say that they are evil mass murderers, it is simply an argument about accepting personal responsilbilty.

alison

OK dont worry about the other bit.

So shouldnt those firing rockets FROM the building on PURPOSE take responsibility? Otherwise surely we/you/whoever are exonerating the tactics of Hizboallah ensuring they are succesful and therefore endorsing such behaviour to be repeated in the future. This is modern warfare created by Hiztbollah and its ilk. Surely if weve any chance of preventing this in the future we should condemn those who started the war and continue such barbaric tactics. Why should Israeli citizens pay the price when we are exonerating the aggressors? They will pay the price if their army is not allowed to protect them?

Colm

alison

I don't disagree with anything you have said regarding Hizbollah and their ultimate responsibilty for starting the conflict , but that does not absolve Israel from responsibilty for the actions they choose. There is a perfectly valid and plausible argument for Israel to explain the necessity of it's actions but they (like anyone else) are still responsible for the actions they choose to do.

I don't have any expectations that Hizbollah (or any terrorist group) will act responsibly , they won't , but difficult and annoying though it can be , respectable sovereign states like Israel do have a duty to uphold higher standards and while they have every right to defend themselves must also act with greater care and attention than we would ever expect the terrorists to do.

The comments to this entry are closed.